7. NON-VIOLENCE AS A PRINCIPLE OF ACTION

    It is self-evident that in the actual life of man intellectual, social, political, moral can make no real step forward without a struggle, a battle between what exists and lives and what seeks to exist and live and between all that stands behind either. It is impressible, at least as men and things are, to advance, to grow. fulfill and still to observe really and utterly that principle of harmlessness which is yet placed before us as the highest and best law of conduct. We wig use only soul-force and never destroy by war or any even

Page-68

defensive employment of physical violence 3 Good; though defensive until soul-force is effective, the Asuric force in men and nations tramples down, breaks, slaughters, burns, pollutes, as we see it doing today, but then at its ease and unhindered, and you have perhaps caused as much destruction of life by your abstinence as others by resort to violence; still you have set up an ideal which may some day and at any rate ought to lead up to better things. But even soul-force, when it is effective, destroys. Only those who have used it with eyes open, know how much more terrible and destructive it is than the the sword and the cannon; and only those who do not limit their view to the act and its Immediate results, can see how tremendous are its after-effects, how much is eventually destroyed and with that much all the life that depended on it and fed upon it. Evil cannot perish without the destruction of much that lives by the evil, and it is no less destruction even if we personally are saved the pain of a sensational at of violence.

    We must remember that the Gita was composed at a time when war was even more than it is now a necessary, part of human activity and the idea of its elimination from the scheme of life would have been an absolute chimera. The gospel of universal peace and goodwill among men—for without a universal and entire mutual goodwill there can be no real and abiding peace—has never succeeded for a moment in possessing itself of human life during the historic cycle of our progress, because morally, socially, spiritually the race was not prepared and the poise of Nature in its evolution would not admit of its being immediately prepared

Page-69

for any such transcendence. Even now we have not actually progressed beyond the feasibility of a system of accommodation between. convicting interests which may minimise the recurrence of the worst forms of strife. And towards this consummation the method, the approach which humanity has been forced by its own nature to adopt, is a monstrous mutual massacre unparalleled in history; a universal war, full of bitterness and irreconcilable hatred, is the straight way and the triumphant means modern man has found for the establishment of universal peace I That consummation, too, founded not upon any fundamental change m human nature, but upon intellectual notions, economic convenience, vital and sentimental shrinkings from the loss of life, discomfort and horror of war, elected by nothing better than political adjustments, gives no very certain promise of firm foundation and long duration, A day may come, must surely come, we will say, when humanity will be ready spiritually, morally, socially for the reign of universal peace; meanwhile the aspect of battle and the nature and function of man as a 6ghter have to be accepted and accounted for by any practical philosophy and religion. The Gita, taking life as it is and not only as it may be in some distant future, puts the question how this aspect and function of life, which is really an aspect anti function of human activity in general, can be harmonised with the spiritual existence.

There is a truth in ahimsa, there is a truth in destruction also. I do not teach that you should go on killing everybody every day as o spiritual dharma, I say that destruction can he done when it is part of the divine work commanded by

Page-70

the Divine. Non-violence is better than violence as a rule, and still sometimes violence may be the right thing. I consider dharma as relative; unity with the Divine and action from, the Divine Will, the highest way. Buddha did not aim at action in the world but at cessation from the world-existence. For that he found the Eightfold Path a necessary preparatory discipline and so proclaimed it. It (ahimsa) had nothing to do with the Yoga, but with the path towards liberation found by Buddha. There are many paths and all need not be one. and the same in their teaching.

    Destruction in itself is neither good nor evil. It is a fact of Nature, a necessity in the play of forces, as things are in. this world. The Light destroys the Darkness and the Powers of Darkness, and that is not a movement of Ignorance!

    It all depends on the character of the destruction and the forces that enter into it, All dread of fire or other violent forces should be overcome. For dread shows a weakness—the free spirit can stand fearless before even the biggest forces of Nature.

    No doubt, hatred and cursing are not the proper attitude.It is true also that to look upon all things and all people with. a calm and clear vision, to be uninvolved and impartial in one's judgments is a quite proper yogic attitude. A condition of perfect samara can be established in which one sees all as equal, friends and enemies included, and is not disturbed by what men do or by what happens. The question is whether

Page-71

this is all that is demanded from us. If so, then the general attitude will be of a neutral indifference to everything. But the Gita, which strongly insists on a perfect and absolute samata, goes on to say, "Fight, destroy the adversary, conquer." If there is no kind of general action wanted, no loyalty to Truth as against Falsehood except for one's personal sadhana, no will for the Truth to conquer, then the samata of indifference will suffice. But here there is a work to be done, a Truth to be established against which immense forces are ranged, invisible forces which can use visible things and persons and actions for their instruments. If one is among the disciples, the seekers of this Truth, one has to take sides for the Truth, to stand against the forces that attack it and seek to stifle it. Arjuna wanted not to stand for either side, to refuse any action of hostility even against assailants; Sri Krishna, who insisted so much on samata, strongly rebuked his attitude and insisted equally on his fighting the adversary. "Have samata", he said, "and seeing clearly the Truth, fight." Therefore to take sides with the Truth and to refuse to concede anything to the Falsehood that attacks, to be unflinchingly loyal and against the hostiles and the attackers, is not inconsistent with equality. It is personal and egoistic feeling that has to be thrown away; hatred and vital ill-will have to be rejected. But loyalty and refusal to compromise with the assailants and the hostiles or to dally with their ideas and demands and say, "After all, we can compromise with what they ask from us," or to accept them as companions and our own people—these things have a great importance. If the attack were a physical menace to the work and the leaders and doers of the work, one would see this at once. But because the attack is of a subtler Rind, can a passive attitude be right? It is a spiritual battle inward and outward; by neutrality and compromise or even passivity

one may allow the enemy forces to pass and crush down the Truth and its children. If you look at it from this point, you will see that if the inner spiritual equality is right, the active loyalty and firm taking of sides is as right, and the two cannot be incompatible.

    I have, of course, treated it as a general question apart from all particular cases or personal questions. It is a principle of action that has to be seen in its right light and proportions.